←back to thread

LLMs understand nullability

(dmodel.ai)
169 points mattmarcus | 6 comments | 07 Apr 25 14:52 UTC | HN request time: 0.262s | source | bottom
Show context
EncomLab ◴[07 Apr 25 15:24 UTC] No.43612568[source]▶
This is like claiming a photorestor controlled night light "understands when it is dark" or that a bimetallic strip thermostat "understands temperature". You can say those words, and it's syntactically correct but entirely incorrect semantically.
replies(6): >>43612607 #>>43612629 #>>43612689 #>>43612691 #>>43612764 #>>43612767 #
1. fallingknife ◴[07 Apr 25 15:35 UTC] No.43612691[source]▶
Or like saying the photoreceptors in your retina understand when it's dark. Or like claiming the temperature sensitive ion channels in your peripheral nervous system understand how hot it is.
replies(4): >>43612763 #>>43612981 #>>43613088 #>>43613136 #
2. throwuxiytayq ◴[07 Apr 25 15:43 UTC] No.43612763[source]▶
Or like saying that the tangled web of neurons receiving signals from these understands anything about these subjects.
3. nativeit ◴[07 Apr 25 16:04 UTC] No.43612981[source]▶
Describing the mechanics of nervous impulses != describing consciousness.
replies(1): >>43613340 #
4. ◴[07 Apr 25 16:14 UTC] No.43613088[source]▶
5. throw4847285 ◴[07 Apr 25 16:19 UTC] No.43613136[source]▶
This is a fallacy I've seen enough on here that I think it needs a name. Maybe the fallacy of Theoretical Reducibility (doesn't really roll off the tongue)?

When challenged, everybody becomes an eliminative materialist even if it's inconsistent with their other views. It's very weird.

6. LordDragonfang ◴[07 Apr 25 16:41 UTC] No.43613340[source]▶
Which is the point, since describing the mechanics of LLM architectures do not inherently grant knowledge of whether or not it is "conscious"